I'm not really the one who makes these decisions; I'd just wait for
someone on the Core team to reply to this thread. Maybe they are all
just busy right now.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:08:43PM -0400, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 06:28:46PM -0700, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
I th
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 06:28:46PM -0700, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
> I think this is a good idea. Is there a reason why it got no interest?
> Slippery slope?
What's the next step? Can it get committed?
> Or maybe others were also just occupied trying to figure out how
> Joshua's second message had
I think this is a good idea. Is there a reason why it got no interest?
Slippery slope?
Or maybe others were also just occupied trying to figure out how
Joshua's second message had timestamp earlier than his first message?
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 12:05:36PM -0400, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
With t
With this patch,
> A <- matrix(1, 2, 2)
> B <- matrix(2, 3, 2)
> A %*% B
Error in A %*% B :
non-conformable arguments of dimension (2, 2) and (3, 2)
>From 205b591d4d14b5ff667325fb233a6deb08314726 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joshua Nathaniel Pritikin
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 12:03:58 -0400
Sub
